July 28, 2010

A few more faces from the counter-demonstration.

P1010055

P1010073

P1010119

(Background and photography here and here.)

249 comments:

1 – 200 of 249   Newer›   Newest»
Henry said...

I like the "Let them eat Wedding Cake" sign. Joyful demonstrators are the best demonstrators.

AlphaLiberal said...

Hulsey and Maski. How nice.

The bigots were way out numbered.

c3 said...

Its a good thing the rest of Wisconsin has Madison to keep it straight.....

(Wait, that didn't come out right.)

John Thacker said...

Unfortunately, I assume that the Left will discount this counter-protest because everyone in the photos appears to be white. That automatically discredits a protest, AIUI.

AlphaLiberal said...

John, "the left" WAS the counter-protest. The protesters were the right wing, demanding discrimination and prejudice.

shoutingthomas said...

The protesters were the right wing, demanding discrimination and prejudice.

You really are just an evil son-of-a-bitch, Alpha.

I've met so many assholes like you in SF and NYC.

I've got to remind you again. That isn't really a halo over your head. It's your asshole, and you're head is firmly planted inside.

What a sick, sanctimonious piece of shit you are.

Seven Machos said...

How many gay people who have married people of the same gender are in jail or have been fined, or punished in any way for marrying each other? What laws on the books in Wisconsin make gay marriage "illegal"?

SMGalbraith said...

As Seven Machos points out, gay people have every right to marry each other that straight people do. Again: the right to marry. Same sex marriage is not illegal or banned or forbidden.

No law prevents them from getting married, no law prevents them from living with one another, no law will punish the minister or authority marrying them.

The question is whether that "marriage" will be given the same legal recognition that opposite sex marriage does. It's a question of "formal" vs. "informal" marriage.

If the state of Wisconsin got out of the marriage business and didn't recognize any marriage, that wouldn't mean marriage is illeal. It just means they won't be recognized for legal purposes.

jayne_cobb said...

I'd be curious as to how many of those protesters would then turn around and claim that it is okay to bar polygamy between consenting adults.

I wonder how they would argue that the gender requirement is arbitrary while the numerical limit is somehow absolutely necessary.

Or are we simply supposed to ignore the similarities between the arguments?

El Pollo Real said...

The woman in the bottom photo has Rand Paul hair!
(so do I when it's unshorn)

AlphaLiberal said...

"No law prevents them from getting married,"

Really? This is breaking news. You better call up the papers and tell them.

We had a referendum question on this and bigotry and hate carried the day - the marriage ban is in effect here and in states across the country.

Why? Because some people say it's their religious belief that God opposes OTHER people of the same sex getting married. \

So, they want to use the government to ram their religious beliefs down other peoples' throats. They want to dictate to others who those others may marry.

Then they run around claiming to give a shit about freedomg.

chuck b. said...

Thanks for going to this! Good pictures, as always.

MadisonMan said...

I wonder how they would argue that the gender requirement is arbitrary while the numerical limit is somehow absolutely necessary.

If a polygamous female of wealth dies and leaves no will, how is her wealth distributed among her various husbands?

jeff said...

"Unfortunately, I assume that the Left will discount this counter-protest because everyone in the photos appears to be white. That automatically discredits a protest, AIUI."

"John, "the left" WAS the counter-protest."

Wow. Way to miss the point. So (taking a page from your book) what you are saying is that if a group of majority white people take a stance YOU like it's ok, just fighting discrimination and prejudice, but if a group of majority white people are against high spending and over reaching federal government, they are the klan. Got it.

garage mahal said...

*googling unshorn*

SMGalbraith said...

Really? This is breaking news. You better call up the papers and tell them.

The right to marry was guaranteed by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

If two gay people go to a church and are married by the minister, nothing will be done to prevent that arrangement. They will not be physically prevented from marrying one another. They will not be arrested for marrying one another.

Gay marriage is not illegal or banned.

The question, again, is whether the state must recognize for legal purposes that marriage. If the state does not legally recognize that marriage, the couple remain married.

Not recognizing a marriage is not the same as banning a marriage.

AlphaLiberal said...

John with the crazy talk:

"Wow. Way to miss the point. So (taking a page from your book) what you are saying is that if a group of majority white people take a stance YOU like it's ok, just fighting discrimination and prejudice, but if a group of majority white people are against high spending and over reaching federal government, they are the klan. Got it."

WTF? Do you speak English? Are you sane?

No, the point is that there was a protest organized by NOM. That's why Appling was speaking there. The people in favor of freedom to marry were counter-protesting.

That's all there is to it. No reason to get insulting. one group organized the protest and one group countered.

yeesh.

AlphaLiberal said...

SMGalbraith, that is a distinction without a difference.

AlphaLiberal said...

Sorry, John, that was a "Jeff" with the crazy talk.

So long, assholes. Spread your hate without me.

edutcher said...

jayne_cobb said...

I'd be curious as to how many of those protesters would then turn around and claim that it is okay to bar polygamy between consenting adults.

Excellent point, and that is because it is just intended as the opening wedge. The Lefties have been trying to destroy the American family for 50 years. Like making shacking up and promiscuity (pre-AIDS, of course) semi-acceptable, this is another weapon for them.

El Pollo Real said...

LOL Garage-It's a Wisconsin regionalism-I get that from my mom who also says "unthaw"

SMGalbraith said...

SMGalbraith, that is a distinction without a difference.

No, it shows that the claim that gay marriage is illegal or banned is false.

Same sex couples are simply not banned from marrying one another.

The question is whether the state must extend the same legal benefits to same sex married couples that they give to opposite sex couples.

FWIW, I support making the extension. But that's a different argument.

HDHouse said...

@edutcher...

50 years huh? that would mean some big event in 1960....ohhhh JFK's election? So that is when all this hubbub started? Can you be more specific as to exactly what happened 50 years ago that cause the universe to tilt so much? C'mon. I can't wait for this!

MayBee said...

Unfortunately, I assume that the Left will discount this counter-protest because everyone in the photos appears to be white. That automatically discredits a protest, AIUI.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

These pictures are better.
I really don't like the "Equality" argument, though (as made in at least one sign). We really do not want it to be that "all" people can marry exactly who they want to, do we?
We want the state to license unions according to the morality of society. It's just that it's time for society to recognize gay people fall within the realm of people we want to be legally able to marry.

Gabriel Hanna said...

I don't really care if gay marriage becomes "legal" in the Alpha Liberal sense, I only care HOW it becomes legal.

We have any number of restrictions on who you can marry. You cannot marry a sibling, a parent, or one of your children or (in some states) first cousins. You cannot marry more than one person, no matter what your religion permits or requires. You can't marry a person under the legal age, no matter how much in love you may be, or whether your religion permits it.

Restrictions on marriage cannot all be civil rights issues, can they?

The consanguinity ban, we all think, has something to do with retard babies. Except that we don't require ANYONE to be tested for nasty recessive genes, do we? And we let people like Sarah Palin give birth even though women in their forties are more likely yo have Down syndrome babies, so it seems clear to me that restrictions based on consanguinity are nothing more than expressions of bigotry and prejudice--right?

One couple in Germany, a brother-sister couple, sued in 2007 to marry on civil rights grounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424337.stm

You have to explain why, if gay marriage is about civil rights, why all the other restrictions on marriage are not.

Throwing around words like "hate" and "bigotry" for a concept that didn't even exist thirty years ago, and was denied as a goal as recently as ten years ago (anyone remember "civil unions"?), is only slightly less ridiculous than thinking the Founding Fathers secretly encoded in the Constitution a right to a form of marriage predicated on what was then a felony punished with extreme harshness.

garage mahal said...

LOL Garage-It's a Wisconsin regionalism-I get that from my mom who also says "unthaw"

I've definitely heard unthaw before. I always liked "shit plant", when speaking of a water treatment facility.

wv hydro

sunsong said...

This is the right's attempt at the Nanny State. The left has a different version. Both left and right are determined to control the rest of us through their one-size-fits-all social engineering.

It doesn't occur to them that you never really can *control*. People are different and have different values and different behviours. And they won't confrom to your demands. Period.

Love is the goal - not some groups defintion of *family*. Anytime we become more loving and more kind - that is a good change.

Some people are confusing form with content. The content is love. The form is less important.

Alex said...

What a sick, sanctimonious piece of shit you are.

shoutingthomas - stop rationalizing your sick, twisted hatred of gays. You are the sick asshole.

Quayle said...

I'd be curious as to how many of those protesters would then turn around and claim that it is okay to bar polygamy between consenting adults

Yes, well how ironic. In the mid to late 1800s, according to the popular prevailing sentiment at the time, the Mormons were America's profligate, dissolute rabble.

Now according to gay rights advocates Mormons all hateful inhibited, prudes.

And what has changed so dramatically in the intervening years? Hint, it isn't the Mormons.

Alex said...

I notice another sick, twisted neocon asshole equating being gay with with pedophilia, incest and other bestiality. No wonder Americans are flushing conservatives down the toilet. They are also sickening by this mindless hatred of gays. America stands with the rainbow!

Alex said...

Keep it up cons. Keep up your sick, twisted hate. November is coming!

Quayle said...

"I notice another sick, twisted neocon asshole equating being gay with with pedophilia, incest and other bestiality. "

Well I note that for the majority of years of its existence the sick, twisted neocon assholes at the American Psychiatric Association made similar equivalencies in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM).

So you're not far from being in ostensibly solid company.

Pogo said...

One side argues that the very roots of civilization are being hacked away, while the other side sees it as merely a new branch and a healthier tree.

Somehow, the Madison Pride anti-NOM circus does not suggest to me that the latter, but instead the former, will hold sway.

In any event, the dissolution of marriage as a creator of citizens continues apace, as the barbarian life holds the far greater appeal. Again, Rome beckons.

TosaGuy said...

Yawn. A social issue protest in Madison on a sunny gorgeous day at a time when the economy remains on the skids and we have 10 percent unemployment. The number of people (on both sides) that will vote in November based upon this issue do not equal more than attended the event.

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AlphaLiberal said...

It just occurred to me why Jeff responded as he did, bringing up white people this and that.

"Prejudiced" and "bigoted" are not restricted to racial issues.

When conservatives demand to strip gays and lesbians of the rights and benefits of marriage, they are being prejudiced and bigoted.

It's actually a very open and shut case of prejudice and bigotry, it's just that the discriminatory policies the right wing advocates are based on sexual preference.

Which is an asshole position to take, no doubt about it. Especially since they seem to think they have the right to use the government to inflict their religious beliefs on others - THAT is downright unAmerican.

Henry said...

And what has changed so dramatically in the intervening years? Hint, it isn't the Mormons.

No, no changes, except for that polygamy thing.

Henry said...

Alpha, please go away. You aren't helping our side.

SMGalbraith said...

I'll remind our "progressive" and non-judgmental friends that President Obama is against the legal recognition of same sex couples.

And, please, learn what a "neocon" is? You really sound very foolish slinging the term around.

Gabriel Hanna said...

It's actually a very open and shut case of prejudice and bigotry, it's just that the discriminatory policies the right wing advocates are based on sexual preference.

Muslims and the consanguineous are also discriminated against for religious reasons, Alpha. Why don't you advocate civil rights for them? We're only as free as the least free of us, after all.

Gabriel Hanna said...

I'll remind our "progressive" and non-judgmental friends that President Obama is against the legal recognition of same sex couples.


oh, yeah, forgot about the President.

Alpha Liberal, please tell us again how Barack Obama is a hate-filled bigot?

Or is he lying to everyone about what he really thinks?

Do clarify for us...

Sam said...

The debate will rage on forever. Depending on your upbringing and religious/political views, you're going to be pro or anti gay marriage.

Most countries however recongize the institutionalised sanctity of marriage is best kept between a man and woman.

- Moen

Gabriel Hanna said...

Let's not forget Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law. Or Kerry and Edwards, who opposed legalizing same-sex marriage.

Alpha Liberal, why do you keep voting for hate-filled bigots?

AlphaLiberal said...

Henry, we're not on the same side.

Henry:
"If all goes well, we'll remember Reid as Wile E. Coyote.

Sooner or later gravity is going to catch up with these overconfident morons"

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-can-you-sell-when-you-do-not-have.html

SMGalbraith said...

The biggest obstacle for those of us who support the legal recognition of gay marriages are our "supporters" like the ones here. What a bunch of jerks.

Sure, I realize that some - some - opponents of the change are bigots. But most are people sincerely concerned about the effects of changing such a vital and fundamental institution.

I think Jonathan Rauch has answered those concerns: Gay Marriage and Conservatism.

At least for me.

c3 said...

from a previous, related thread:
Spread your hate without me.

And therein is the gist of what gets to me. Is that the repeated narrative?

If you support immigration retrictions you are a racist.

If you don't support gay marriage, you're full of hate and a homophobe.

If you gather with other folks to protest higher taxes and a larger government you're probably a racist.

Frankly, if you're a Republican, a party that by definition and history appeals to white racism, you're a racist.

I'm going to over-generalize here but does anyone on the left stop to think:
Oh wait a majority of Californians don't support this, maybe we should rethink our rhetoric

OR

A majority of Americans are concerned about the debt and the growth of government, maybe we should rethink our response to the tea Party protests

OR

A majority of Arizonans support tighter border enforcement, maybe the race card shouldn't be played

This is as foolish as the rhetoric that has come from the Religious Right (i.e. they are "sinners" and leading to the destruction of our society)

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Alpha Liberal:

When conservatives demand to strip gays and lesbians of the rights and benefits of marriage, they are being prejudiced and bigoted.

And when Bill Clinton signed DOMA, which according to you strips gays and lesbians of the rights and benefits of marriage, he was a....


And when you voted for him that made you a...

See what happens when you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being evil?

AlphaLiberal said...

I agree that those Democrats are wrong to support DOMA and other bigoted policies. Obama is wrong on that score, as are the Clintons. I don't think they believe in such discrimination, just political expediency.

I've said so before and will say so again. But, again, your protests are mere deflections. The calls for this discrimination and bigotry emanate from the right wing of America's body politic.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Alpha Liberal:

Obama is wrong on that score, as are the Clintons. I don't think they believe in such discrimination, just political expediency.

I see, so they vote for hatred and bigotry to further their grubby little policitcal careers--and in your book they are excused.

I predict that all the commenters here who disagree with you will be quoting this for YEARS to come, Alpha Liberal.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Alpha Liberal, at some point don't you have to ask yourself if maybe YOU are the rube that the people you vote for are counting on fooling?

After all, doesn't the President still keep DADT in place? Isn't Gitmo still open, and US troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and people, including civilians, killed by US air strikes, and the PATRIOT act still in place?

Aren't YOU the sucker? Every single Democratic politician has taken you for a ride, have they not?

Henry said...

Alpha, on this issue we're on the same side.

You really are a singularly repellent advocate for your positions. As an opponent of economic statism, most of the time I don't mind.

But really, try to imagine actually persuading someone to your point of view, as opposed to yelling insults. It might be worth the trouble.

SMGalbraith said...

Alpha Liberal:
I have tremendous respect and gratitude for the liberal contribution to America over the decades. If it wasn't for liberals fighting the good fight, we'd be a much poorer nation.

I am no liberal basher or hater.

But you personify everything that is bad about liberalism. The arrogance, the judgmentalism, the sanctimoniousness.

If you really want to help the progressive cause, get off the internet.

Really.

Old Dad said...

Alpha wrote:

"So long, assholes. Spread your hate without me."

The ironist--heh.

Did you ever notice that when Alpha threatens to leave, he never does?

garage mahal said...

Congratulations Obama and Biden. You are to the right of Dick Cheney on marriage equality! Remember him? Pathetic.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Henry:

Alpha Liberal is a primate and throws feces at everyone not on his SIDE.

Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama et al are ON HIS SIDE Alpha Liberal will abandon any and all of his principles to support and excuse them, no matter what they do.

He votes for these men, he thinks, because it's a rational political calculation. You can't always get everything you want, and you have to compromise, and choose the lesser of two evils.

It would be silly to criticize Alpha Liberal for that; what I hate about him is that he refuse to acknowledge that anyone he disagress with is making the same calculations he is. Instead, he accuses everyone else of hate, bigotry, and racism for doing exactly what he does for the same entirely rational reasons.

sunsong said...

The emergence into the open of same-sex relationships is an irreversible fact in this country. Traditionalists may not like it, but they cannot change it, so they will have to decide how to deal with it. The far right's plan—try to push homosexuals back into the closet—is not going to work; the majority of Americans are too openhearted for that. Indeed, the currents of public opinion are running the other way. An annual survey of college freshmen found that last year 58 percent—a record high, and up from 51 percent in 1997—thought that same-sex couples should be able to marry. Jonathan Rauch (from the link)

SMGalbraith said...

An annual survey of college freshmen found that last year 58 percent—a record high, and up from 51 percent in 1997—thought that same-sex couples should be able to marry

Yes, but twenty-somethings become forty-somethings and your views change.

Hell, I voted for Gus Hall when I was 21.

What a dope I was.

SMGalbraith said...

I remember reading a column by William F. Buckley arguing that, for conservatives in particular, the two most difficult words to reply to were:

"Why not?"

Methadras said...

AlphaLiar said...

demanding discrimination and prejudice


This is what passes for actual thought to a leftard. There is no demand to discriminate or to be prejudicial when you are making the argument that the status quo be left in place. From your point of altered reality if you don't have it, then of course it's discrimination and prejudiced.

slarrow said...

I remember reading a column by William F. Buckley arguing that, for conservatives in particular, the two most difficult words to reply to were:

"Why not?"


Good observation. The question often demands a week's answer or a second's answer. Unfortunately, that often doesn't calibrate with the questioner's attention span.

Seven Machos said...

The problem with gay marriage is that large majorities don't want the state to recognize it in their communities. Almost always, people should be able to define their own communities democratically.

I would vote for gay marriage. I am slightly troubled by gay adoption but not much.

craig said...

G.K. Chesterton, re: "why not?":

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

James said...

Methedras said:

"This is what passes for actual thought to a leftard. There is no demand to discriminate or to be prejudicial when you are making the argument that the status quo be left in place. From your point of altered reality if you don't have it, then of course it's discrimination and prejudiced."

Wow. So when George Wallace made his famous "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" speech, he wasn't calling for discrimination or to be prejudicial, he was just "arguing that the status quo be left in place!" Nothing discriminatory or prejudicial there! Thanks for enlightening me there, my friend.

Pastafarian said...

This (legally recognized gay marriage) is one of those issues that's very difficult for me. I'm ambivalent about it, and it wouldn't be difficult for someone passionate and convincing on either side to sway my opinion.

However, as has been noted on other threads, most of the liberal commenters on the Althouse blog don't really seem to concern themselves with convincing anyone of anything with their comments.

Alpha, garage, Ritzy, and HDHouse, the most active reliably leftist commenters at the moment, would all prefer to score debating points and attempt to make their "opponents" look foolish.

That's not the same as making a convincing argument, Alpha and garage. You know that, right?

Sometimes it seems as though you're desperately trying to convince yourselves of what you're saying.

TMink said...

Do you notice how colorful the clothes are? Not so much red, white, and blue as you see at the Tea Parties, more pastels it seems. Is that what you noticed?

Trey

edutcher said...

HDHouse said...

@edutcher...

50 years huh? that would mean some big event in 1960....ohhhh JFK's election? So that is when all this hubbub started? Can you be more specific as to exactly what happened 50 years ago that cause the universe to tilt so much? C'mon. I can't wait for this!

Looks like HD's meds finally kicked in. He doesn't remember what he's supported that last 50 years.

So sad.

Henry said...

@Seven Machos - One of my good friends from college and his partner have adopted three children. One of my wife's good friends and her partner have adopted one. You couldn't find better parents.

Really, it just comes down to the individuals.

Pastafarian said...

And that has to be the whitest crowd I've ever seen. I mean, they're not just caucasian, but they're larval in their whiteness. Have they no sun in Madison?

I know that Alpha and garage will again ignore this point, or act as though they don't understand it, but let's try it again: Why is this crowd apparently 100% white?

If I recall correctly, the collective complexion of Tea Party protests was evidence of their racism -- and they included a few African Americans. Are these pro-gay-marriage protesters racists too?

Pogo said...

Chesterton's advice is a wise and useful warning.

Most such signs are blithely ignored, as will this, as were similar protests past.

How the majority of gays went form wanting to smash marriage to wanting to own marriage is a story itself. But that wholesale change in opinion is forgotten or denied, and the New New Thing must be had, damn the consequences (because for them, there aren't any, ever).

Pogo said...

"Really, it just comes down to the individuals."

Of course it does.
One's neighbors and city and nation matter not at all, do they?
What difference could it make if the kids go to schools with knives and guns aplenty, where they are beaten up by the bigger kids?
So what if your neighbors are pedophiles, ex-cons, or thieves?
What does it matter if taxes are usurious, if the politicians are on the take, if bribery is the norm?
What if there are no moral norms, if to lie is held in the same esteem as truth-telling, if being cheated is the basis of trade?

Really, it just comes down to the individuals.

Kirstin said...

Haven't the "Legalize Love" people listened to the committed couples who don't need a marriage certificate because it's just a piece of paper?

Henry said...

How the majority of gays went form wanting to smash marriage to wanting to own marriage is a story itself. But that wholesale change in opinion is forgotten or denied, and the New New Thing must be had, damn the consequences (because for them, there aren't any, ever).

Who is "them" you refer to? This paragraph sounds like a battle of stereotypes in your head. Stereotypes stuck in the '70s.

I have a gay friend who over 20 years go was cruelly shunned by the system when his long-term partner sickened and died.

Episodes like that will change people's minds.

Henry said...

One's neighbors and city and nation matter not at all, do they?

What in the world are you talking about?

garage mahal said...

Pasta
I don't know what you're rambling on about about me. Here is what I wrote:


Congratulations Obama and Biden. You are to the right of Dick Cheney on marriage equality! Remember him? Pathetic.

7/28/10 12:04 PM


As far as gay marriage, I say let them marry. It takes away nothing from me. The longer this issue is out there the sillier it looks. What's the big whup?

Tidy Righty said...

Ms. Althouse, I don't know how you can stand living in a city with so many fat lesbos and prancing sodomites. Madison is is city on the edge of self destruction. Have you and Meade thought about moving to an area that has a better moral climate and supportive of our country and its values?

Pogo said...

Pogo: "One's neighbors and city and nation matter not at all, do they?"

Henry: What in the world are you talking about?"

You argued that "Really, it just comes down to the individuals."
I'm suggesting you are forgetting a few items that make the number somewhat larger than two, and more complex than a single household.

Pogo said...

"I have a gay friend who over 20 years go was cruelly shunned by the system when his long-term partner sickened and died."

By 'the system'?
And you accuse me of being 'stuck in the '70s'?
(The Man is keepin' me down!!)

System? What system? I thought it all came down to individuals?

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alcuria said...

AlphaLiberal writes:

"No reason to get insulting."

Then proceeds to post:

"So long, assholes."

Henry said...

Pogo, let's rehash.

Seven wrote "I am slightly troubled by gay adoption, but not much"

I wrote that I know a number of gay couples quite well who are great parents. Individuals. My point being that raising children depends more on the character of the parents than their sexual orientation.

You wrote "Knives and guns! Pedophiles! Bribery!"

Your argument seems to be that gay marriage will upset all social norms. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

You've gone from point A to point Zed with no connection in between.

sunsong said...

Of course it does.
One's neighbors and city and nation matter not at all, do they?


That's the marxist view, isn't it. The collective is more important than the individual? We must serve the whole - the One? :-)

The far right and the far left are so alike. They should join together to fight against love and kindness.

"Control the evil people
can be their ralying cry. Individuals are too wretched and evil to run their own lives - they must be controled by law and big government.

Henry said...

By 'the system'?

The man was denied visitation rights when his partner was in the hospital. He wasn't recognized as next-of-kin and the estranged relatives of his partner that were recognized as next-of-kin took advantage of that judgment. It was the beginning of a long string of legal troubles he had in relation to his partner's sickness and death.

Things are different now. I offer up this anecdote as an example of why people's opinions (gay and straight) may have changed over the years.

AST said...

So how long before the demand is to force all churches to perform Gay Marriages? That's the real goal, isn't it?

The intent is to validate homosexual relationships; to make them just like heterosexual ones not only in law but in the minds of all, i.e. to convince us that only bigots would think otherwise. So our religions and millennia of traditions now dare not speak their names? That sounds like affirmative action for homosexuals.

c3 said...

The far right's plan—try to push homosexuals back into the closet—is not going to work

I would wager that if you surveyed those who voted for Prop 8 in California, you'd find a distinct minority who want homosexuals to "go back to the closet"

But yes, that is the approved narrative. Just as all of those who support SB 1070 in AZ want to racially profile and discriminate (if not hate) hispanics.

Its just got to be that.

Greybeard said...

Slightly OT:
I drove through your fair city on my way home from the EAA Convention yesterday. On the right rear bumper of a Ford Focus at a stop light (What, couldn't afford a Prius?) in front of me was this sticker:
"I'm already against the next war!"
On the left side:
"Obama' 08."

So, Adolf Hitler... do your thing.
Madison, WI is ready to look the other way.

El Pollo Real said...

...not only in law but in the minds of all, i.e. to convince us that only bigots would think otherwise.

Silghtly OT but whatever happened to that street preacher in England arrested for voicing similar opinions to those at the rally in Madison? linkage

Tea Partiers fought a war against England long ago.

Beth said...

Tidy Righty,

What about the prancing fat lesbos?

Little Towhee said...

Right up front, I'll claim my conservative roots as well as my Christian roots.

I continue to think on this issue of gay marriage, something on one hand that I say, "What's it going to hurt even if I do not agree with it or homosexuality at any level? It is about individual liberty, right?"

And then on the other hand, that which prevents me from supporting gay marriage is the opening of potentially dangerous floodgates. We speak of the "individual's liberty", but as a collective, we are responsible for deciding whether our society should accept or reject particular notions for the betterment of our nation's citizens. How will gay marriage and family life affect our society?

And why are homosexuals and heterosexuals alike afraid to talk about the problematic cultural issues brought about by certain lifestyle choices (not just homosexuality)? Homosexuals and gay marriage supporters often retort with: "Well, it's not like straight marriages and family life are all that great."

I'd like to see the gay marriage supporters take a hard look in the mirror and clearly see what is problematic on their part. And likewise, anti-gay marriage supporters need to look at themselves.

Which side is the most selfish?
The homosexual marriage side?
The anti-gay marriage side?

For the most part, the homosexuals I know have been able to partner (even "marry" with ceremonies) without being jailed or discriminated against by anyone. Is the argument for government funding for the gay-ly married? Is it so that gays can force those who have spiritual convictions against homosexuality to marry them and accept them?
Is the argument over who can/can't get government funds via tax reliefs, etc.?

Do gays just want to feel that what they do is "normal" and not wrong? Would that make them more comfortable in their own skin if other people were forced to accept homosexuality?

I'm not convinced that the gay marriage supporters are looking out for their own individual liberties as much as they truly want government funds and hand-outs. Perhaps it's time for the government to get out of the marriage business for anyone at all?

Pogo said...

"My point being that raising children depends more on the character of the parents than their sexual orientation."
That's not what you wrote ("it all comes down to individuals"), but I can see how you may have intended that meaning.

"Your argument seems to be that gay marriage will upset all social norms."
No, it will upset some social norms. That's inarguable.

"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"
Now you're being hysterical.
My point was that raising children depends on far more more than just the character of the parents, but depends mightily on the character of the nation.

And the current institution has served as its bulwark; we dispense with it at our peril. You may argue whether that is true or not, but that is the crux of the concern about abandoning the norm altogether, as you argue we should.

knox said...

their grubby little policitcal careers

LOL. Grubby, yes. Little, no! Unfortunately.

Pogo said...

sunsong said..."That's the marxist view, isn't it."

No, it is not.
That's completely and utterly wrong, misleading, and disingenuous.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@sunsong:

Control the evil people
can be their ralying cry. Individuals are too wretched and evil to run their own lives - they must be controled by law and big government.


Right. People should be allowed to make decisions that affect themselves alone without government interference.

You will join with me in demanding a repeal of the minimum wage laws, then? After all, people are smart enough to make their own decisions, and what business is it of other people what wage my employer and I agree to?

SMGalbraith said...

What about the prancing fat lesbos?

Don't even try asking him about Jewish fat lesbo journalists.

He's either a nut that's pretending to be something he isn't or a nut who is authentic.

In either case, let him go.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Tidy Righty is an obvious troll--first, because conservatives don't call themselves "righties" anymore than liberals call themselves "pinkos"; second, because the name is a play on "tightie whities". Do people who take themselves as seriously as Tidy Righty pretends too call themselves a ridiculous name?

Henry said...

That's not what you wrote ("it all comes down to individuals"), but I can see how you may have intended that meaning.

With all due respect, you seem to have taken that one word and galloped off in a random direction.

In any case, I recognize your argument. And I disagree with you on two grounds. First, extending the marriage franchise as a legal entity really doesn't change that much. The government has taken upon itself to assign legal and economic privileges to some marriages. Yet gay couples can get married and obtain legal protection as a partnership almost anywhere in the country. They just have more hoops to jump through. Sure, how the state recognizes marriage has symbolic resonance, but I question how much. The state's authority over marriage is far more amorphous than your Burkean assertion of moral norms suggests, yet Western Culture has survived.

Second, the evidence doesn't support you. New England looks the same as it ever did, despite gay marriage being recognized by Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts for some years now.

Henry said...

@Gabriel Hanna. I'm with you.

Pastafarian said...

Beth, SMG -- "Tidy Righty" is such a transparent Moby that not even a hyper-partisan like AlphaLiberal will bother to use him disparage other conservative commenters.

Now, I don't mind a nice, brief, obvious Moby-like parody on occasion, where someone makes it so obvious that they're parodying the other side that there's no danger of passersby mistaking it for anything but a parody. I recall someone doing a very good impersonation of Cedarford once, for example.

And I'll occasionally attempt this sort of thing myself, under a different screen name and avatar, but I'll make it so over-the-top and absurd as to be obvious.

What this asshole behind "Tidy Righty" is trying to do is poison the well of public discourse, and he should be shunned.

AlphaLiberal said...

Alcuria @ 1:32:

Yes, you've busted me. I succumbed to the insults from the right. After coming here and trying to reason with conservatives for years and getting little more than insults thrown back at me for my troubles, I succumbed. My bad.

That said, I do honestly believe that people who think they have a God-given right to repress others and create a second class status for people different than them are "assholes."

That they distort Christianity to make it into this religion of bigotry (it's not, Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality) doesn't put them in a much better light.

That they do not honestly debate on this or much of anything else doesn't improve their image at all. That they also lie and smear so casually and ignore facts which show they are at odds with reality also makes them look even worse.

So, until they behave, I will continue to think they are assholes but will try not to say so "out loud."

Thanks,

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Henry

I'm with you.

On repealing minimum wage? I'm not sure I'm with me on that! But I bet sunsong has just discovered that allowing consenting adults to make their own economic decisions is just too perverted to tolerate...

Maybe you meant "Tidy Righty".

Henry said...

Little Towhee wrote, "Perhaps it's time for the government to get out of the marriage business for anyone at all?"

I agree with that. The crux of the problem is that the state has identified marriage with specific legal and economic privileges. You can argue (and I concede, above) that gay couples can obtain near-equivalent rights.

But those rights don't track the marriage franchise. Extending marriage clarifies the position of the state vis-a-vis all couples, not just heterosexual ones. As many businesses design benefits around marriage status (as legally they often must), extending marriage also clarifies employment issues.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Alpha Liberal:

That said, I do honestly believe that people who think they have a God-given right to repress others and create a second class status for people different than them are "assholes."

You're talking about Bill Clinton now? After all, he's the one signed DOMA into law. None of the "bigots" here did that.

Pogo said...

"New England looks the same as it ever did, despite gay marriage being recognized by Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts for some years now."
Did you think the adverse effects would be immediate?
Destruction occurs at the margins, and then progresses inexorably.


"...yet Western Culture has survived."
Has it?
It seems a goner in Europe. Others have so argued. Theodore Dalrymple has done the best work there.

Henry said...

Pogo wrote Destruction occurs at the margins, and then progresses inexorably.

Sorry, I'm an optimist. But if I see any inexorable destruction around here I'll let you know.

It seems a goner in Europe.

And you blame gay marriage? I blame socialism.

peter hoh said...

Just back from the St. Paul event, at which the NOM side was as large -- or maybe even larger -- than the counter-demonstration.

I wasn't there at the onset, but it appeared to be an orderly counter-demonstration, with no chanting over the speakers.

Comrade X said...

Equality For All People is what one of the posters says.

But that's not what they actually want. They want in on the benefits that come from being married such as estate transfers without taxation and social security benefits and employer benefits. If they wanted equality, they would want the special treatment for marrieds rolled back and equal treatment for everyone, coupled or not. They just want in on the deal.

sunsong said...

Right. People should be allowed to make decisions that affect themselves alone without government interference.

You will join with me in demanding a repeal of the minimum wage laws, then? After all, people are smart enough to make their own decisions, and what business is it of other people what wage my employer and I agree to?


I love Thoreau's famous line: "the government that governs least, governs best".

I opposed the hike in the minimum wage and note that, as predicted, it is hurting minority youth the most.

I am for a freer society. I think that individuals can indeed be that responsible. And, obviously, that includes gays being free to marry.

Old Dad said...

Alpha wrote:

"That they distort Christianity to make it into this religion of bigotry (it's not, Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality) doesn't put them in a much better light."

Jesus was a devout and practicing Jew. His book was what we Christians refer to as The Old Testament. What are we to make of the fact that he never explicity teaches about homosexuality. Perhaps, that Jesus was comfortable with the extant teaching of his faith on that subject. Look it up.

It's pointless and foolish to criticize a faith from a posiiton of ignorance.

sunsong said...

sunsong said..."That's the marxist view, isn't it."

No, it is not.
That's completely and utterly wrong, misleading, and disingenuous.


If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck... :-)

Where are you NOT arguing for a collectivist view on gay marriage? How does your view support individual liberty?

peter hoh said...

And another difference between the Madison event and the St. Paul event: there were no giant puppets in St. Paul.

peter hoh said...

Old Dad, Jesus was very clear in his teachings about divorce, and yet current law stands in direct opposition to those teachings.

But we're supposed to hold gays up to Old Testament standards?

Pogo said...

"And you blame gay marriage? I blame socialism."

No, I don't and never wrote that.

I have argued that gay marriage is one of the last signs of decline, not the origin of the fall.

Palladian said...

"And the current institution has served as its bulwark; we dispense with it at our peril."

Why does the continued existence of the supposedly ancient and sacred institution of heterosexual marriage hinge upon the opinion of the temporal and secular State? To listen to the Cassandras, if the temporal and secular State changes its requirements for civil marriage (as it has done on several notable occasions in the past), then Western civilization is going to collapse into rubble. This is an extraordinary claim that, like the prophesies of the socialist left, invest the State with a Godlike and unique power to uphold human civilization, a power that the secular and temporal State should never have had in the first place. The State should never have been allowed to infringe upon and usurp the control over a religious institution such as marriage. If marriage is a holy sacrament, then why does the opinion of the secular government matter?

Marriage should be defined and controlled by religious institutions as they see fit. The State should only involve itself in civil domestic contractual unions, which should be available to any persons regardless of sex.

Palladian said...

"I have argued that gay marriage is one of the last signs of decline"

What a pleasure it is to have my personal relationships be one of the horsemen in your fictive apocalypse.

c3 said...

Thread jack warning:

News flash: parts of AZ SB 1070 stayed by Fed judge Details here

Key quote and the new "point of confusion"

The governor deferred answering specific questions about the impact of the ruling to her attorneys. For example, Bolton let the part of SB 1070 that requires agencies to enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent of the law to stand, but enjoined the part about allowing officers to question an individual's legal status.

When asked how it would be possible to do one without the other, Brewer said her office would need to "confer with our lawyers to see how that would be enforced."


America is saved

(sorta)

peter hoh said...

Palladian, yes, marriage predates the state. But marriage also predates religious institutions.

Kirstin said...

"That they distort Christianity to make it into this religion of bigotry (it's not, Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality) doesn't put them in a much better light."

He never said a thing about rape or tripping the blind, either. All Scripture is God-breathed.

Pogo said...

"Where are you NOT arguing for a collectivist view on gay marriage?"
Collectivist? Heh. By your definition, any state control is 'collectivist'. But remember, anarchy has a bad dental plan.


"How does your view support individual liberty?"
It doesn't. Civilization depends on that, however. I'm a conservative, not a libertarian; I don't believe endless libertinism is a worthy goal, or the basis for a supportable society.

Pogo said...

"if the temporal and secular State changes its requirements for civil marriage (as it has done on several notable occasions in the past), then Western civilization is going to collapse into rubble."

Not what I was stating. The decline predates any demand for gay marriage, and has little to do with it. It's only a sign, not a cause. And I believe it's inevitable.

Pogo said...

"What a pleasure it is to have my personal relationships be one of the horsemen in your fictive apocalypse."

Marriage is in decline. I don't blame gay marriage for it, but state only it means marriage as a bulwark of civilization is dying.

I don't think that is a good thing for civilization, but I could be wrong.

Old Dad said...

Peter Hoh,

Let your conscience be your guide. Many people have religious scruples vis vis homosexuality, abortion, drug use, etc. While we may disagree (or not), it's unwise to ignore those sentiments. The Catholic prohibition of homosexual acts is intellectually rigorous and nuanced, as is the Church's posiiton on life. No one is compelled to believe, but it's ridiculous to label believing Catholics as ignorant or bigoted (and I know you didn't do that). My point is that some tend to denigrate religious thinking in the sphere of politics. Yes, it's a complex matter, but I tend to try to honor deeply felt religious conviction.

That's why I favor "Civil Unions" for everyone. The state should not be in the business of conferring sacraments--that's the realm of the churches. Insisting on calling a civil ceremony marriage needlessly aggravates some religious citizens. Churches should be free to stipulate that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. States need not be bound.

Carolyn said...

It's nice to see a civil counter-demonstration for a change.

Just a reminder that even some "non-believers" have reservations about changing the definition of marriage. Follow the link, read the whole thing. Think about it. Heather McDonald:

"The main answer to the “Why does it matter?” question is this: The institutionalized severing of biology from parenthood affirms a growing trend in our society, that of men abandoning their biological children. Too many men now act like sperm donors: they conceive children then largely disappear, becoming at best intermittent presences in their children’s lives. This phenomenon is increasingly common among the less educated, and dominates in the black community. . . .

If parental status is a matter of intent, however, not of genes, absent fathers can say: “I never intended to take on the role of that child’s parent; therefore I’m not morally bound to act as a parent.”

. . . gay parenting creates a single-sex home as a matter of deliberate engineering, not accident or unforeseen chance.) The sole argument potentially remaining for persuading fathers that they should raise their chidren — that children need two parents in the home — is easily disposed of: My baby momma is living with her mother. . . "

I live in a low-income community a very large percentage of kids have fathers who have no concept of a moral obligation to act like their fathers. It's very sad to see the effect this has on kids. But not quite this sad.

And do you think that defining fathers as second-rate mothers, at best, might have some negative consequences for society? Men have already been marginialized in the family structure to a large extent.

Revenant said...

I have argued that gay marriage is one of the last signs of decline, not the origin of the fall.

One of the last, eh? So what are the remaining few? Dogs and cats living together, that sort of thing?

Palladian said...

"That's why I favor "Civil Unions" for everyone. The state should not be in the business of conferring sacraments--that's the realm of the churches. Insisting on calling a civil ceremony marriage needlessly aggravates some religious citizens. Churches should be free to stipulate that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. States need not be bound."

Exactly!

peter hoh said...

Old Dad, I don't think I've ever denigrated anyone's religious beliefs. I think I've managed to engage in this debate without accusing the other side of bigotry. (Though I will admit that some on my side engage in anti-religious bigotry.)

We already call apply the name "marriage" to hetero civil unions done without the blessing of clergy. Our blogmistress is married, even though some churches wouldn't recognize it as a valid marriage per their rules. The state of Colorado, in recognizing the Althouse-Meade marriage, is not making any sacramental claims.

victoria said...

Their demonstrating against counters??? I like counters. They are convenient places to put things. Toaster, pictures, kitchenaid mixer.



Vicki from Pasadena

victoria said...

shoutingthomas, what a condescending, narrowminded jackass you are.

Vicki from Pasadena

Revenant said...

The Catholic prohibition of homosexual acts is intellectually rigorous and nuanced, as is the Church's posiiton on life. No one is compelled to believe, but it's ridiculous to label believing Catholics as ignorant or bigoted (and I know you didn't do that).

With all due respect, and at the risk of Godwinning the threat, the Nazi-era German government's position on Jews was also rigorous and nuanced. The Communist position on capitalism is rigorous and nuanced. The Creationist position on evolution is rigorous and nuanced. The Hezbollah position on Israel is rigorous and nuanced.

The problem is that when you build your rigorous and nuanced argument on a foundation that is nothing more than ignorant bigotry and nonsense -- e.g., "[homosexual acts] are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity." -- you wind up with a rigorous and nuanced argument that only the ignorant and the bigoted can take seriously.

Revenant said...

By your definition, any state control is 'collectivist'. But remember, anarchy has a bad dental plan.

Anarchy is bad because we need a government to protect individual rights.

We do not need a government to protect "neighbors and city and nation". Protect the individuals and those things take care of themselves.

Pogo said...

"With all due respect, and at the risk of Godwinning the threat"
There was no respect in that, and it did Godwin the thread. The Nazis also ate food, fornicated, built airplanes, and listened to music.


"Churches should be free to stipulate that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. States need not be bound."
Ditto.

Pogo said...

"a rigorous and nuanced argument that only the ignorant and the bigoted can take seriously."

It's always nice when you can judge your opponents as nuts.
Simplifies things quite a bit.

c3 said...

With all due respect...


Or not

c3 said...

The irony of this long thread:

My sense is that there is common ground regarding civil unions and that religions should be free to sanction a "marriage".

So if states only recognized "civil unions" between man and woman or man and man or woman and woman would that make everyone happy or would there still be the argument over "second class citizen" vs "the end of civilization as we know it"

Pogo said...

It would be acceptable to many, save for those who demand the word 'marriage' be redefined.

Revenant said...

There was no respect in that, and it did Godwin the thread. The Nazis also ate food, fornicated, built airplanes, and listened to music.

I figured someone here would be dumb enough to think I was saying Catholics are like Nazis. Thanks for rising to the challenge. My point, which you missed, is that "nuanced and rigorous" does nothing to rule out "ignorant and bigoted".

Oh, and I must have missed your outraged response when Quayle was drawing parallels between homosexuality, pedophilia, and alcoholism yesterday. Were you taking a day off from your job with the Example Police?

AlphaLiberal said...

Old Dad:

Jesus was a devout and practicing Jew. His book was what we Christians refer to as The Old Testament. What are we to make of the fact that he never explicity teaches about homosexuality. Perhaps, that Jesus was comfortable with the extant teaching of his faith on that subject. Look it up.

Yeah, I know. I'm a Christian and don't need your very flawed preaching.

You are claiming that Jesus did not preach what he believed. That sounds pretty odd.

I don't think so. Conservative Christians are cherry picking ("Cafeteria Christians") the Old Testament to serve their un-Christian prejudices against gays.

Examples of Biblical teachings not followed by the "Cafeteria Christians:"

9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

But you guys hang an awful lot on Lev 20:13, right smack dab in the middle of all this bizarreness:

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

You are "Cafeteria Christians." Show us where Jesus spoke against homosexuality.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Congratulations Obama and Biden. You are to the right of Dick Cheney on marriage equality! Remember him? Pathetic.

Not pathetic. Calculated and cynical.

They don't need the Gay vote and are instead trying to get the Black and Hispanic voters who are absolutely NOT gay friendly and who more socially conservative on the marriage issue and who culturally anit-gay.

Obama knows he isn't ever going to get the religious right because they are social AND fiscal conservatives. So he is going after the minority blacks, hispanics and illegal alien vote.

Gay's go under the bus....badabump.

Blue@9 said...

I'd just like to know what is the rational policy argument against gay marriage. What, that it's going to ruin straight marriage? That's a laugh and you know it. I doubt my gay neighbors are going to ruin marriage any more than Mel Gibson or Britney Spears.

What else, that we're messing around with religious definitions of marriage? Again, a laughable argument. We're talking about secular marriage. Same word, different thing. If you get married at city hall, you didn't get a religious marriage, but you're still married in the eyes of the law. Vice versa, if you get married in church but don't fill out the gov't issued marriage certificate, you're married as far as your church is concerned, but not under the law. So please, let's dispense with the conflation of religious and secular marriage. They may be the same word but it's not the same thing, and people advocating gay marriage aren't touching religious marriage at all.

AlphaLiberal said...

AST:

So how long before the demand is to force all churches to perform Gay Marriages? That's the real goal, isn't it?

No. Not at all. That would be unConstitutional.

The question is he exact opposite: Why do these churches think they should be able to use the power of government to force their doctrine on those not of their church?

My solution: Let churches set their marriage policies and let other people be free to make their own decisions over whom they will marry.

AlphaLiberal said...

Blue@9, you have nailed it:

I'd just like to know what is the rational policy argument against gay marriage. What, that it's going to ruin straight marriage? That's a laugh and you know it.

They have no rational arguments to address this.

Revenant said...

So if states only recognized "civil unions" between man and woman or man and man or woman and woman would that make everyone happy or would there still be the argument over "second class citizen" vs "the end of civilization as we know it"

That amounts to giving something to gay couples and taking something away from married heterosexual couples. It wouldn't fly with gay marriage opponents.

It would be acceptable to many, save for those who demand the word 'marriage' be redefined.

So a gay union recognized as marriage by a church, and recognized as equal to a heterosexual marriage by the government, wouldn't be one of the final signs of the collapse of Western civilization... but it WOULD be, if the government used the word "marriage" instead of "civil union"?

Or are you saying that while it would be acceptable to "many", you're not among them?

peter hoh said...

c3, David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch, on opposite sides of this debate, floated a civil union compromise, but it isn't going anywhere.

Conservative-libertarians would be happy by a civil union compromise, but the non-libertarian conservatives are strongly against it. I think that liberals would take the deal, but national Democrats don't have the courage to take the lead on this issue.

Revenant said...

AlphaLiberal,

You're overlooking the fact that Jesus quite explicitly told people to stop performing religious executions. The whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing, remember?

Jesus still believed that it was morally wrong to curse your parents or to commit adultery, bestiality, or sodomy. Christians believe that, too. The change Jesus made was to leave it up to God to punish the sinners, instead of relying on religious vigilante justice.

If you want to accuse fundamentalist Christians of picking and choosing which laws to follow, the food and clothing regulations are a better place to start. :)

Blue@9 said...

Seriously, are people so retarded that they can't understand the idea that religious marriage and secular marriage are different? Do you need a RAM upgrade to understand both of these ideas simultaneously? For fuck's sake, the gov't's recognition of gay marriage won't do shit to how the Catholic church or Islam or any other religion recognizes marriage.

I wasn't married in any church. Most religious sects probably don't even recognize my marriage because I didn't undergo conversion or all the required rituals. BFD. I'm still married under the law, and despite the fact that it's called "marriage," I haven't seen the collapse of social order.

Methadras said...

James said...

Wow. So when George Wallace made his famous "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" speech, he wasn't calling for discrimination or to be prejudicial, he was just "arguing that the status quo be left in place!" Nothing discriminatory or prejudicial there! Thanks for enlightening me there, my friend.


Segregation and homosexual marriage are two different subjects. Neither are related and your analogy is meaningless because they do not compare in any way. My reference was to homosexual marriage, not the feeble straw man you put up about segregation. You are projecting one onto the other and then you claim enlightenment? Fuck you.

Blue@9 said...

So how long before the demand is to force all churches to perform Gay Marriages? That's the real goal, isn't it?

What a fucking joke. No one is forcing churches to do anything. I couldn't get a priest or rabbi to officiate my marriage because my wife and I are atheists. Religions are still free not to recognize marriages that are not performed according to their rites and traditions. No one is arguing the opposite. What we're talking about is what happens at city hall.

AlphaLiberal said...

Thank you for that polite response, Revenant. It was reasoned.

I still say Jesus never preached against homosexuality. And, you were not able to cite an example where He did. To hear the loudest Christians of our day, that would be a key tenet of the faith.

If so, wouldn't He have mentioned it?

Revenant said...

I'd just like to know what is the rational policy argument against gay marriage.

Utilitarianism. The people made unhappy by a change in marriage laws outnumber those who will be made happy by the change.

Precautionary principle. We know societies that shun gay marriage are viable over the long term, we don't know for certain that those which embrace it are. So, absent a pressing need to change, why change?

Self-interest. Government recognition confers benefits; each new recognized marriage imposes a small additional tax burden on each taxpayer. Self-interest indicates that we should oppose expanding recognition of marriages unless there is some offsetting benefit.

There. Three rational reasons for opposing gay marriage. I don't agree with any of them, but they all have a rational basis.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I couldn't get a priest or rabbi to officiate my marriage because my wife and I are atheists.

If you are atheists, why would you try to have a religious wedding?

Why would you care. And more to the point, why should the church or synagogue waste their time on you if you were not going to convert to their religion.

Up until this point, I was on your side....no I just think you are a selfish asshole.

Anglelyne said...

AlphaLiberal: It just occurred to me why Jeff responded as he did, bringing up white people this and that.

No, you still haven't got it. Go sit in the corner and think harder.

Pogo said...

Rev said: "I figured someone here would be dumb enough to think..."
Yes, it's so strange someone would think that when you voiced concern about Godwinning, you might have in fact Godwinned.


"So a gay union ....wouldn't be one of the final signs of the collapse of Western civilization"...
I said it would be 'acceptable', not exculpatory. The long slide continues, a la Dalrymple and Ravel. The name change only relieves the animosity a bit, which seems prudent.

Revenant said...

I still say Jesus never preached against homosexuality. And, you were not able to cite an example where He did.

Suppose your state legislature passed a set of laws declaring that prison sentences were being halved, hate speech was being made a crime, and the speed limit was repealed. Would you think I was rational if I said "there's nothing in there about murder, so that means murder's legal now"? Of course not. There's already a law against murder. It remains valid until someone explicitly repeals it.

Jesus was modifying an existing religion, not inventing a new one. The rational position is that the old rules remain valid unless he said something to change them. The change he made -- as I noted -- was to remove the part where humans carried out the punishment for sins. The sins remain.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Alpha Liberal, Jesus never preached against slavery either--so you and all other Christians should have no objection, right?

Jesus never preached against corporations.

Jesus never preached against pollution.

There's a lot of things you consider wrong that Jesus never preached against, and you claim to be a Christian.

You also claim that it's okay to be against gay marriage if you are just sucking up to voters.

SMGalbraith said...

The rational argument against same-sex marriage is that a family unit made of two individuals of the same sex is fundamentally different than a family unit of people of the opposite sex.

Men and women are fundamentally and inherently different. Two men or two women are simply not the same as a man and a woman.

To my knowledge, no religious or secular moral system in the history of the world has recognized same sex marriage. Theocracies or atheist systems and everything in between has deemed marriage a union between a man and a woman.

That long history and the fact that biologically men and women are different all create a rational and sensible argument against recognizing, for legal purposes, same sex marriages as being equal to opposite sex marriages.

Obviously, if you think history and tradition are bunk (after all, slavery was a long-held tradition!) and you think men and women are not inherently different, you'll reject those arguments.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Alpha Liberal:

Matthew 5:17-18

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Problematic for you and all other Christians, for lots of reasons...

Pogo said...

"No one is forcing churches to do anything."
Yet. Why do you think lawsuits wouldn't be immediately follow a state or federal law? And for a gummint that has little compunction about interfering in every other aspect of my life (due to our "living Constitution that says whatever the hell they want it to say), why you think the State would not interfere in that arena is a mystery.

peter hoh said...

methadras: Segregation and homosexual marriage are two different subjects.

Um, not according to Brian Brown, the president at NOM, who today attempted to paint their organization as the continuation of the Civil Rights movement.

"We've taken great pains to make clear what were all about. We view ourselves as a new civil rights movement ... committed to something that in the 1960s was key: the right to vote."

sunsong said...

"How does your view support individual liberty?"


It doesn't. Civilization depends on that, however. I'm a conservative, not a libertarian; I don't believe endless libertinism is a worthy goal, or the basis for a supportable society.

Well that was my point :-) You are supporting collectivist control. And yet, rail against collectivist control being the result of the decline of civilization :-)

It seems to me that the American experiment - and that's what it is - an experiment - is based on an increase in individual liberty beyond anything known at the time.

Now, I believe, we are ready for even greater personal freedom, with responsibility.

It may upset or frighten you - but I believe it never ends - the desire for greater freedom and self-determination as opposed to collectivist control.

I noticed you said on another post:

I could be wrong

Good for you - couldn't we all :-)

There is a line from a Leonard Cohen song:

"There is a crack in everything - that's how the light gets in."

Pogo said...

"You are supporting collectivist control."
If we were truly free, I could kill or steal from anyone I please. But for you meddling collectivists, I cannot!

Jason (the commenter) said...

It's pathetic how some people are so outraged by other people holding signs with ideas they don't agree with.

Geoff Matthews said...

My concern with government recognition of same-sex marriage is centered mainly on the male side of homosexuality.

Male homosexuals have higher levels of promiscuity, even when they are in committed relationships. The idea of monogamy is on the margins. My concern is that this (open relationships) becomes accepted (mainstreamed). I could see arguments in divorce court where one party argues that infidelity shouldn't be grounds for divorce as monogamy wasn't expected. If this argument is ever accepted, it becomes applicable to male-female marriage law.

In regards to the government hand outs, the government gives these (presumably) because of the function marriage plays in society. The two-parent home is important for raising children. Most married couples have had children. Most same-sex couples will not have children. Ergo, male-female marriage has a stronger benefit to society than same-sex marriage. Given that, I think it is worthwhile to treat the two differently.

SMGalbraith said...

how some people are so outraged by other people holding signs with ideas they don't agree with

If depends on the idea on the sign.

A signing saying: "Lynch niggers and kikes" or something similarly outrageous would, yes, outrage me.

SMGalbraith said...

My hesitation in supporting the recognition of same sex marriage (I'm for it, for what it's worth) revolves around the sex or gender of the people and not their sexual orientation.

There is simply inherent and deep differences between males and females. A marriage between two men or women is simply not the same as that of a man and a woman. It's not. Whether they have sex with one another or not.

Now, that's not sufficient for me to oppose SSM. But it's certainly a rational and legitimate argument against it.

Carolyn said...

Peter Hoh,

Why do you think that liberals would accept a federal "civil union compromise"?

Proposition 8 in California was specifically about the word "marriage". Gays in civil unions had all other rights afforded to married couples (on the State level).

Joe said...

An argument could be made that current marriage law itself is destroying marriage. Why would a guy get married if upon divorce he's forced to fork over a huge amount of money as alimony almost regardless of his wife's financial position or how much she contributed to his financial success.

Moreover, why have kids if the state automatically presumes that the woman should get full custody and the man supervised visits?

Marriage law is completely fucked up in this country (and letting gays in will arguably do them a disservice.)

For the record, civil unions for everyone who wants one and can legally sign a contract, including polygamists. (And having just paid for a wedding, I say civil unions must be done at the court house and the tradition of the bride's family paying for the wedding be made criminal.)

Revenant said...

If we were truly free, I could kill or steal from anyone I please. But for you meddling collectivists, I cannot!

Theft and murder are violations of individual liberty and freedom, specifically that of the victims.

We don't ban them for the good of "society".

Revenant said...

Male homosexuals have higher levels of promiscuity, even when they are in committed relationships. The idea of monogamy is on the margins.

So basically what you're saying is... they're guys?

Joe said...

To my knowledge, no religious or secular moral system in the history of the world has recognized same sex marriage.

Perhaps not (I'm sure there's an exception) but many, if not most, religion and secular moral systems recognized plural marriage. The vast majority, including that in recent western tradition, that the woman was legally the man's property to do with as he wished.

So yeah, let's get back to traditional marriage where women could not own property, could be raped by their husbands with no legal recourse, could not obtain a divorce even in the face of blatant infidelity.... Hurry for tradition!

SMGalbraith said...

So yeah, let's get back to traditional marriage where women could not own property, could be raped by their husbands with no legal recourse, could not obtain a divorce even in the face of blatant infidelity.... Hurry for tradition!

You're right, let's toss out all of our traditions. Respect for our elders? Who needs it. Caring for the poor or children? Ah. Throw that out. Honor and decency towards others? Nah. Ancient practices we no longer need.

We can engage in dueling caricatures or we can argue sensibly.

Not all traditions are worthy of continuance; but neither are they all worthless.

Joe said...

You entirely miss the point; even if we assume that historically marriage has never been between a two men, it's equally true that it's rarely been between one man and one woman. Moreover, few people really want "traditional" marriage, so why the appeal to it as an argument?

This isn't a side issue either--it goes right to the heart of the issue. The basis of the anti-SSM movement is that marriage HAS ALWAYS been between ONE man and ONE woman. That's true only in the very modern era. It's not true historically and not true many places in the modern world.

If you want to say marriage SHOULD be between only ONE man and ONE woman, fine, but don't appeal to history to support your case.

Methadras said...

peter hoh said...

Um, not according to Brian Brown, the president at NOM, who today attempted to paint their organization as the continuation of the Civil Rights movement.

"We've taken great pains to make clear what were all about. We view ourselves as a new civil rights movement ... committed to something that in the 1960s was key: the right to vote."


Brian Brown doesn't speak for me. I speak for me. If that is his sentiment, then I would tell him to his face that he is wrong. And he is. The two are distinctly separate issues. Just like homosexual activists making the claim that their struggle is the same as that against slavery or even the civil rights movement. It isn't and these types of moral equivalencies shouldn't be made anymore.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't see any people of color at this protest.

AC245 said...

even if we assume that historically marriage has never been between a two men,

This is true.

it's equally true that it's rarely been between one man and one woman.

This is not true at all.

c3 said...

I'd just like to know what is the rational policy argument against gay marriage.

If the state has any interest in sanctioning and financially supporting (via tax credits) a contract between two adults (as pertains to domestic issues) it would be such an arrangement wherein the likely of a stable procreative and child-rearing environment is highest.

(Hopefully, you all noted all of the qualifiers in that statement)

SMGalbraith said...

The basis of the anti-SSM movement is that marriage HAS ALWAYS been between ONE man and ONE woman.

Sorry, I've never heard any responsible opponent of SSM argue that throughout world history marriage has been between two people, a man and a woman. Obviously there have been all kinds of arrangements of humans throughout the recorded history of man. Even today, we have examples of polygamy among Muslims or tribes in Africa and elsewhere.

Opponents make, I think, two arguments worthy of consideration:

(1) That there are inherent differences between men and women and that two men or two women are a fundamentally different relationship than a man and a women;

(2) Since Western man has been living under a sovereign power, under a social contract (real or illusory), marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman.

And those thousands of years of history should not be simply tossed away as a meaningless tradition.

As I said, one can dismiss that several thousand-plus year history as well as the inherent differences between men and women. I don't, even though I support the legal recognition of SSM.

c3 said...

Al;
I don't think you're interested in a Christian theological argument but your contention that conservative Christians are hypocritical because they ignore multiple injunctions from the Old Testament can be addressed with the concept of dispensationalism

It should be noted that all conservative Christians are not dispensationalists.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Geoff Matthews: Male homosexuals have higher levels of promiscuity, even when they are in committed relationships. The idea of monogamy is on the margins

I'm sure there are more heterosexual couples who are in open relationships than there are homosexual ones.

And I wonder if there are other groups, races, body types, whatever, that are more prone to promiscuity than average. It isn't right to ban any of them from marriage because of it.

Peter V. Bella said...

"I don't see any people of color at this protest."

Gays are racists?

Kirstin said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

"I'm sure there are more heterosexual couples who are in open relationships than there are homosexual ones."

Do you mean a higher percentage of heterosexual couples are in open relationships than homosexual couples? Or just more in absolute numbers?

I don't have the name of the sociological study, but I've read that there is more cheating in same-sex relationships. It makes sense--there's twice the testosterone.

HT said...

Someone has noted that this is the end of the line for marriage. My new thought of the day is that same sex couples didn't want to get in on marriage back when the divorce rate was below 40%. But now that it's 50% or above, it is more attractive. Yes, you can argue that there were other battles back then, and that's true. But I do think there is some thinking going on along the lines of 'if it doesn't work out, oh well, divorce is easy enough.' It's not gays' fault that marriage has been laid so 'low,' but now that it has been, I do think it's more attractive, and IMO at least, will further weaken the already weak institution.

James said...

Methedras said:

"Segregation and homosexual marriage are two different subjects. Neither are related and your analogy is meaningless because they do not compare in any way. My reference was to homosexual marriage, not the feeble straw man you put up about segregation. You are projecting one onto the other and then you claim enlightenment? Fuck you."

Here are your words from before:

"This is what passes for actual thought to a leftard. There is no demand to discriminate or to be prejudicial when you are making the argument that the status quo be left in place. From your point of altered reality if you don't have it, then of course it's discrimination and prejudiced."

The point in my analogy is that yes, you can say there is a demand to discriminate or to be prejudicial, even if all you are doing is "making the argument that the status quo be left in place," if the status quo is discriminatory or prejudicial.

Good lord, didn't think that would be so hard to understand. Perhaps instead of George Wallace, I should have used supporters of the bans on interracial marriage at issue in Loving v. Virgina. I guess I just didn't figure my point would so easily go over your head. So with that, a hearty "fuck you" to you too.

peter hoh said...

methadras, yes, I know Brian Brown doesn't speak for you. I thought you would be amused/chagrined to hear that he was laying claim to the very thing you were decrying.

Carolyn, that some people were not satisfied with California's domestic partnerships does not prove that liberals would be opposed to a civil union compromise on the federal level.

But there's little chance of seeing such a compromise come to any sort of vote, so it's a moot point.

Old Dad said...

Alpha wrote:

"You are claiming that Jesus did not preach what he believed. That sounds pretty odd."

I'm claiming no such thing. Do you think that Scripture is the totality of what Jesus believed? That's absurd.

王彥李威昌霖 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
peter hoh said...

HT wrote: My new thought of the day is that same sex couples didn't want to get in on marriage back when the divorce rate was below 40%. But now that it's 50% or above, it is more attractive.

Baker v Nelson goes all the way back to 1970 (the year after Reagan signed the first major no-fault divorce law).

Trooper York said...

"Beth said....
What about the prancing fat lesbos?"

Why we love them. Unless they start talking stupid shit about how the 'Aints are gonna repeat.

Then we contact a mental health professional to get them off the streets.

Chef Mojo said...

@王彥李威昌霖

I enjoy yor comment, in addition. I have love 4 easturn things like electronix and teppanyaki & hot, sultry nights in Bangkok.

U like cowboy leg?

胡維倫 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
HT said...

Interesting Peter. Thanks. (Discrimination based on gender was interesting)

But does one court case appealed to the SC equal a mass movement?

Revenant said...

My new thought of the day is that same sex couples didn't want to get in on marriage back when the divorce rate was below 40%.

The divorce rate peaked at 0.53% twenty-nine years ago, in 1981. Since then, it has dropped to 0.35%, which is where it was in 1968. The last time divorce the divorce rate was as LOW as it is today, homosexual activity was illegal in every state, considered a form of mental illness by the medical establishment, and viewed by the overwhelming majority of the public as an immoral perversion. The Stonewall riots and the formation of gay activist groups was still a year in the future, and the first pride march was two years off.

So, yes... weirdly enough, gay people back then weren't wasting a lot of effort on asking for gay marriage.

Trooper York said...

Hey Lawgiver likes Cowboy leg.

I hear he has a picture of Tony Romo in Jessica Simpsons panties.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

rsb said...

Jesus always shows up in these debates - too bad we'll never really know what that guy thought.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Must alpha liberal dominate and disrupt EVERY thread that it participates in? I mean really...


WV: norture, something akin to torture.

Beth said...

Thanks to all who point out TR is either a Moby or deranged; I realize this, but I don't mean this note to say "hey, I know so shaddup." I thought your concerns were actually very nice, a quick "step away from the cliff," the sort of thing that keeps a thread congenial.

I wasn't seriously engaging TR; I was enjoying the jest in combining "fat lesbos" with "prancing sodomites" to get something jolly. "Fat prancing sodomites" is entertaining, too (shout-out to Palladian!)

Trooper got it - and I will prancing to "When the Saints Go Marching In" in my comfortable, roomy-sized Saints T-shirt come September.

Have I mentioned that the New Orleans Saints are going to win the 45th Superbowl?

HT said...

I'm willing to concede that the divorce rate might not be as high as 50%, but I'm not willing to conclude it is as low as 35%.

peter hoh said...

HT, one case does not a movement make, but it's not like the idea just popped into someone's head three years ago.

And yeah, Rev's stats about the divorce rate sound right to me. The rate -- especially for first marriages -- is much lower than generally believed.

Trooper York said...

Madri Gra was a long time ago girlie. Are you still drunk?

AlphaLiberal said...

I hope the conservatives and the hyper-conservatives will listen to the 911 call at the end of this post.

It's a woman who survived a raid by a Minuteman faction. These Minutmen/women shot her husband and daughter.

In the past two weeks, the cops just caught a guy who was going to shoot up the Tides Foundation.

The hysteria and talk pf violence is getting out of hand. Can you right wing please tone it down? Please.

Milwaukie guy said...

Me and my buddy Phil are going to get married as soon as Oregon allows. We will get marvelous tax and health bennies. We're not gonna fuck, however, cause we like the babes and government should stay the hell out of the bedroom.

Since we're in business together in an LLC, now being related will allow us all sorts of other bennies related to family members in LLCs such as workman's comp. What's not to love [except each other, in that way].

When the courts rule that bans against plural marriage and consanguinity are "unequal," Phil and I will marry my brother.

We also think this will be a good opening line for picking up women in bars. Par-tay!

Revenant said...

I'm willing to concede that the divorce rate might not be as high as 50%, but I'm not willing to conclude it is as low as 35%.

Not 35% -- 0.35%. That's the yearly per capita divorce rate. What you're thinking of is the percentage of marriages that end in divorce, which is derived from the divorce rate.

Interestingly, couples getting married today are (if current trends continued) much less likely to get divorced than a couple who got married in the 1950s. The 60s and 70s were a rough time for marriages!

HT said...

I'm not going to accept your conclusion because I've seen other data on the web stating that 40-50% in the younger generation probably will end in divorce.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 249   Newer› Newest»